Wednesday, September 28, 2005

And you wonder why we call them the Loonie Left?

I just had to post this photo of a protestor's sign at the "big" San Francisco rally earlier this week(courtesy of ZombieTime).

This sign, more than any other I've seen, highlights the frustration that the rational debater has in trying to engage a Lefty moonbat in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

In the same breath that they shake their collective fists in, what's the word, uh, ANGER, crying for Pres. Bush's blood, and suggesting all manner of violent insurrectionist solutions to getting rid of the "Bush Cabal" and the "lunatic right," they then wrap it all up with a cry of, "Learn Compassion!!" All the while remaining completely intellectually blind to the screaming hypocrisy of it all.

Their signs and slogans cry, "We Want The TRUTH!" Which is kinda of funny, because what they really mean is, "We only want the 'truth' which fits into our neatly packaged 'Hate Bush' worldview!"

If you do manage to somehow wade through their vitriol, parse down their virulent language, and scale the rhetorical bulwarks to the point where you can lay actual, no-kidding facts (read: Truth) right before their eyes, the conversation almost always immediately devolves into something akin to, "Of COURSE you'd say that, you're a CONSERVATIVE! Ptooie!" Ad Hominem attacks are the last recourse of the intellectually stunted.

A perusal through the ZombieTime Anti-war photos shows you a group of individuals reveling in the unrestrained joy of the very same freedom of speech that they seem so intent on denying to the conservative voice. Suggesting that "Bush Is Satan" and "Decapitate Bush" is apparently "vocal activism," not hate speech. Yet, what if I were to replace "Bush" with "Cindy Sheehan" or "Muslims" or "homosexuals;" imagine the resultant frenzy! Veins would throb, tears would flow, cries of hate crime would fill the air! Where I come from, we call that "intellectually dishonest" or a double standard.

That is a concept which seems to escape the "Progressive" mind. Suggesting that you SHOULDN'T be saying something does not equate to saying that you should not be allowed to say something. Criticism of an idea does not mean revocation of your right to present that idea in the public forum, however distasteful it may be. Censure, does not mean censor.

The Progressive faction would have us believe that criticizing a sexual preference, a religious culture, or a political ideology constitutes "hate speech," yet strangely, that same standard does not seem to apply to them in their virulent condemnations of the "Christian fundamentalists," "heteronormatives," "right wing rethuglicans," etc, etc, ad nauseum.

And so we watch in bemused wonder as the Melting Pot of Diversity and Tolerance (*snurk*) swirls about the streets of San Francisco, all the while understanding all too clearly how "acceptable" it would be to this same lot of "activists" if the slogans and signs bore equally abhorrent rhetoric, but from a far right-wing perspective.

How do you debate with people who are so rapturously intoxicated with their own mercurial brew of emotional endorphins that they are essentially unreachable on any kind of intellectual level?